Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
DETAILED ACTION
The following NON-FINAL Office Action is in response to application 18/440,749 filed on 02/13/2024. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
IDS
The information disclosure statements filed on 02/13/2024 and 11/06/2024 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 and are considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
1100 of Paragraphs 0073 in FIG. 11
1200 of Paragraphs 0082 in FIG. 12.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The following is a quotation of 37 CFR 1.71(a):
The specification must include a written description of the invention or discovery and of the manner and processes of making and using the same, and is required to be in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which the invention or discovery appertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same.
The specification is objected to because the phrase “in examples” is used repeatedly throughout the specification without clearly identifying which examples are being referenced. See paragraphs [0026], [0041], [0042], [0053], [0068], [0074], and [0076]. The terminology renders the disclosure unclear and informal because no specific “examples” are defined or enumerated in the specification.
Appropriate corrective action would be to amend the specification to clarify the intended meaning, for example by replacing “in examples” with terminology such as “in some embodiments,” “for example,” or by specifically identifying the referenced examples.
The specification is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0040], line 9, “… from transmitter sub1 05.” should read “… from transmitter sub 405.“.
In paragraph [0073], lines 5-6, “… input data is selected one or more …” should read “… input data is selected from one or more …”.
In paragraph [0075], line 3, “Herein , the stop criterion If the misfit…” should read “If the misfit…”.
In paragraph [0083], line 2 “(e.g., referring to Figure 10)” should read “e.g., referring to Figure 11)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
35 USC § 101 Considerations
Regarding subject matter eligibility, the claims are found to recite additional elements that, when viewing the claim(s) as a whole, integrate any recited abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, the claim(s) recite(s) “moving the electromagnetic tool to a second depth within the wellbore; transmitting a second electromagnetic wave into the subterranean formation with the transmitter coil at the second depth; receiving a second collection of one or more response signals with the first receiver coil at the second depth, wherein the second collection of one or more responses signals are formed from the electromagnetic wave interacting with the subterranean formation” which is found in combination with the other elements in the claim to use the recited abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking it to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to preAIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “further comprising applying an ESI to each of the solutions to form a smoothed solution for each of the solutions”. However the disclosure fails to sufficiently describe how the functions of ESI are achieved. ESI is not a standard image smoothing technique in the image processing community and the disclosure merely states that ESI “may be applied to the solution to smooth out any discontinuity and forms a smoothed solution”, but it fails to provide any description of “how” these functions are performed or the results are achieved. Thus, the claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in sufficient detail that would reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. (MPEP 2161.0l(l): "Similarly, original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail ( simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP §§ 2163.02 and 2181, subsection IV", "It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement.").
Claim 13 is further rejected finding that claim 13 describing “comparing each of the smoothed solutions to each of the solutions to detect one or more resistivity variations” fails to remedy the deficiencies of the rejected parent claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 10-11, 14-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over MA (US 2022/0404520A1 (IDS filed on 11/06/2024 with Cite No 1) ) in view of WU (US20160124108A1 (IDS filed on 11/06/2024 with Cite No 5)).
Regarding claim 1, MA `520 teaches on the following limitations of the claim:
A method comprising:
inserting an electromagnetic tool into a wellbore, wherein the wellbore traverses through a subterranean formation and wherein the electromagnetic tool comprises:
a transmitter sub comprising a transmitter …;
a first receiver sub comprising a first receiver …l; ([0003]: “Various measurement tools are used in LWD applications. One such tool is a resistivity tool, which includes one or more antennae for receiving a formation response and may include one or more antennae for transmitting an electromagnetic signal into the formation.”)
transmitting an electromagnetic wave into the subterranean formation with the transmitter … at a first depth; receiving a first collection of one or more response signals with the first receiver … at the first depth, wherein the first collection of one or more responses signals are formed from the electromagnetic wave interacting with the subterranean formation; ([0017] “As disclosed above, one method of determining the azimuthal resistance (including signal amplitude and signal phase) may be to transmit an alternating current (AC) signal into the strata and to receive a signal conducted, transmitted, or reflected from the strata.”)
moving the electromagnetic tool to a second depth within the wellbore; transmitting a second electromagnetic wave into the subterranean formation with the transmitter … at the second depth; receiving a second collection of one or more response signals with the first receiver … at the second depth, wherein the second collection of one or more responses signals are formed from the electromagnetic wave interacting with the subterranean formation; ([0017]: “Further, the measured resistivity data may be acquired over several successive measurement depths (a sliding window method) either separately or combined.”)
inverting each of the plurality of geological models to form a solution for each of the plurality of geological models at the first depth and the second depth; ([0018]: “DTBB inversion algorithms (hereafter, inversion algorithms) may be used to model the subterranean formation based on the resistivity data measured by the logging tool.”; [0019]: “An inversion algorithm may start with an initial set of conditions to describe the subterranean formation, such as, for example, a number of strata layers, and a randomly assigned resistivity value for each layer.”)
and comparing each of the solutions for the first depth and the second depth to identify one or more resistivity variations within the subterranean formation. ([0051]: “Thus, if the layer below the currently analyzed layer has lower resistivity value compared to the currently analyzed layer, then the lower layer may be assigned resistivity value from D05. However, if the layer below the currently analyzed layer has higher resistivity value than the currently analyzed layer, then the resistivity value may be assigned as D95. With such arrangement, the average/D05/D50/D95 statistics may all be combined into one statistic to form a composite resistivity statistic that has the best formation contrast.”)
MA fails to clearly teach that both the transmitter and receiver are coils, WU , however, does teach that both transmitter and receiver are coils. See, for example, [0042]: “Shielding (not shown) may be applied over the transmitter 115 and the receivers 116, 117 to protect the antenna coils which are deployed near the outer layer of the tool.”.
Additionally, MA fails to teach, WU , however, does teach the following limitation of claim 1
forming a plurality of geological models based at least in part on the first collection of one or more responses signals and the second collection of one or more responses signals;([0097]: “However, a set of initial estimated values close to the actual values would make the inversion much faster and also produce more robust answers. One effective way to obtain close initial estimates of the fracture parameters is to import fracture indicators, HWVFIXXT and HWVFIYYT from a real-time horizontal well fracture processing algorithm to be further explained below. For the propagation tool, one can employ the same method described using the XX and YY from Att and PS measurements of the propagation tool.”).
Both MA and WU are an analogous art as they relate to subterranean formation modeling. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified MA’s teaching on inversion solution calculation, as discussed above, to clearly include “forming a plurality of geological models based at least in part on the first collection of one or more responses signals and the second collection of one or more responses signals” in view of WU with the motivation to improve the efficiency and accuracy of the inversion solution by taking advantage of the unique characteristic signature of the response signal. (See WU [0061], [0097]) (see MPEP 2143 G).
Claim 14 recites similar elements as independent claim 1 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale. Finding that MA also teaches:
A system comprising: an electromagnetic tool which comprises:(FIG. 1 , FIG. 2, [0025] and [0032] )…; and an information handling system in communication with the electromagnetic tool and configured to: (FIG. 1, element 50 and [0028]: “FIG. 1 depicts the computer system 50 as being hardwired to the telemetry system,… ”)
Regarding claim 2, the combination of MA and WU teaches the elements of the parent claim(s). MA further teaches the following limitations of the claim:
The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more resistivity variations are identified by one or more gradient variations at the first depth or the second depth ([0047]: “Each pixel is defined by a depth and a resistivity value, as disclosed above. A derivative or difference in resistivity values between successive pixels along a single pixilated convergent solution may be calculated along the measurement depth. Sequential pixels within a stratum may have nearly identical resistivity values (apart from noise) while pixels located at or near a boundary may possess resistivity values depending on which side of a boundary they are found.”)
Claims 15 recites similar subject matter as claim 2 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of MA and WU teaches the elements of the parent claim(s). MA further teaches the following limitations of the claim:
The method of claim 2, wherein the one or more gradient variations are of a specific distribution from an average model, a peak model, or a specific percentile of the solutions ([0021]: “The plurality of convergent solutions may be statistically analyzed, forming distributions of the modeled resistivity data … In some instances, the ensemble statistics may include an average modeling solution, a lower 5th percentile modeling solution (D05), a median modeling solution (D50), or a lower 95th percentile modeling solution (D95)”)
Claims 16 recites similar subject matter as claim 3 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of MA and WU teaches the elements of the parent claim(s). MA further teaches the following limitations of the claim:
The method of claim 1, further comprising creating an average model from each of the solutions for each of the plurality of geological models ([0021] “In some instances, the ensemble statistics may include an average modeling solution”).
Claims 17 recites similar subject matter as claim 4 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of MA and WU teaches the elements of the parent claim(s). MA further teaches the following limitations of the claim:
The method of claim 1, wherein the comparing each of the solutions for the first depth and the second depth utilizes an individual distribution of the solutions ([0053] “Each convergent solution is pixilated along the length of the measurement distance, resulting in a plurality of pixilated convergent solutions 410, as illustrated in FIG. 4B”).
Claim 20 recites similar subject matter as claim 7 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of MA and WU teaches the elements of the parent claim(s). MA further teaches the following limitations of the claim:
The method of claim 7, wherein only a top 5th percentile of the solutions are used to detect the one or more resistivity variations (FIG. 4C, reference number 424, and [0053]: “FIG. 4C depicts the ensemble statistics 414 calculated for the plurality of pixilated convergent solutions 410 at each measurement depth. Exemplary aspects of ensemble statistics may include a graph of the lower 5th percentile solution 420, the lower 50th percentile (median) solution 422, and the lower 95th percentile solution 424”, noting that the top 5th percentile is equivalent to the lower 95th percentile).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of MA and WU teaches the elements of the parent claim(s). MA further teaches the following limitations of the claim:
The method of claim 1, wherein inverting utilizes a one-dimensional inversion algorithm, a two-dimensional inversion algorithm, or a three-dimensional inversion algorithm ([0019]: “Typically, an inversion algorithm solution may be a one dimensional solution curve of resistivity versus measurement depth. In some non-limiting aspects, the inversion algorithm may generate a two dimensional solution of resistivity versus measurement depth and angular position about the wellbore.”).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of MA and WU teaches the elements of the parent claim(s). MA further teaches the following limitations of the claim:
The method of claim 1, wherein the transmitter sub is closer to a drill bit than the receiver sub (FIG. 2, 216: transmitter, 208: bit, 212: receiver; [0032]: “while a resistivity logging tool transmitter antenna 216 and a corresponding transmitter antenna position measurement device 222b (components of an "at bit" instrument) are housed within the LWD tool sub 206 (the "transmit sub") and closer to the drill bit 208.”)
Claims 5-6 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over MA (US 2022/0404520A1 (IDS filed on 11/06/2024 with Cite No 1) ) in view of WU (US20160124108A1 (IDS filed on 11/06/2024 with Cite No 5)) and further in view of LIU (CN114236639A)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of MA and WU teach the elements of the parent claim(s).
The combination of MA and WU fails to teach, LIU, however, does teach the following element of the claim:
The method of claim 4, further comprising comparing the average model to each of the solutions at the first depth and the second depth to detect the one or more resistivity variations (Page 4, “calculating the mean and variance of the model, mean model represents the most possible inversion result, variance model represents the error range”, noting that variance calculation requires taking the difference between the mean and each of the solution.).
LIU is an analogous art as it relates to data processing and inversion imaging in geophysical field. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified MA’s teaching on subterranean formation modeling ,as discussed above, to clearly include “comparing the average model to each of the solutions at the first depth and the second depth to detect the one or more resistivity variations” in view of LIU with the motivation to evaluate the inversion solution (Page 4, “if the error range is less than the set value, then the inversion result is the inversion result after optimization…”) (see MPEP 2143 G).
Claims 18 recites similar subject matter as claim 5 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of MA, WU, and LIU teach the elements of the parent claim(s). MA further teaches the following limitations of the claim:
The method of claim 5, wherein the one or more resistivity variations indicate one or more faults ahead of the electromagnetic tool ([0018]: “Multiple strata may be separated by discontinuities, or there may be faults within a stratum. Accurate models of the subterranean formation may include not only identifications of each stratum, but the location of the discontinuities separating adjacent strata”).
Claims 19 recites similar subject matter as claim 6 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over MA (US 2022/0404520A1 (IDS filed on 11/06/2024 with Cite No 1) ) in view of WU (US20160124108A1 (IDS filed on 11/06/2024 with Cite No 5)) and further in view of DONG (CN110475943A)
The combination of MA and WU teach the elements of the parent claim(s).
The combination of MA and WU fails to teach, DONG, however, does teach the following element of the claim:
The method of claim 1, wherein the comparing each of the solutions for the first depth and the second depth utilizes a peak model for a distribution of the solutions ([0024]: “In box 308, one or more peaks in the statistical distribution are identified to find the dominant trend in the statistical distribution, and the inversion solution corresponding to the peak is selected for further processing. In box 310, a formation model is generated using the selected inversion solution to effectively summarize the inversion solution.”).
DONG is an analogous art as it relates to subsurface formation modeling. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified MA’s teaching on inversion solution evaluation, as discussed above, to clearly include comparing each of the solutions for the first depth and the second depth utilizes a peak model for a distribution of the solutions in view of DONG with the motivation to improve the inversion solution (Dong: [0006]:”… a post-processing scheme is needed to select the most relevant group from the inversion solution pool” and [0024]: “… one or more peaks in the statistical distribution are identified to find the dominant trend in the statistical distribution “) (see MPEP 2143 G).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over MA `520 (US 2022/0404520A1 (IDS filed on 11/06/2024 with Cite No 1) ) in view of WU `108 (US20160124108A1 (IDS filed on 11/06/2024 with Cite No 5)) and further in view of JI (US20200379136A1)
Regarding claim 12, the combination of MA and WU teach the elements of the parent claim(s).
The combination of MA and WU fails to teach, JI, however, does teach the following element of the claim:
The method of claim 1, further comprising applying an ESI to each of the solutions to form a smoothed solution for each of the solutions (For the purpose of examination, “applying an ESI” is interpreted as applying any structure-aware image smoothing technique. [0006]: “This specification describes an approach for automatically picking stacking velocities while making subsurface seismic images. This approach incorporates structure-oriented smoothing (SOS). SOS is a filtering technique that smooths an image along structures embedded in the image.”).
JI is an analogous art as it relates to subterranean formation modeling. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified MA’s teaching on generating subterranean images, as discussed above, to clearly include applying an ESI to each of the solutions to form a smoothed solution for each of the solutions in view of JI with the motivation to make the subsequent processing more robust ([0006]:” The smoothing can prevent the picking algorithm from selecting rapid velocity jitters so that the picked velocity follows the trend of the stacking velocity variation in space ”) (see MPEP 2143 G).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of MA, WU and JI teach the elements of the parent claim(s).
The combination of MA, WU and JI further teaches the following limitations of the claim:
The method of claim 12, further comprising comparing each of the smoothed solutions to each of the solutions to detect one or more resistivity variations. (See MA [0051] cited in claim 1 rejection and JI [0006] cited in claim 12 rejection”)
MA and JI both are analogous art as they relate to subterranean formation modeling. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified MA’s teaching on comparing each of the solutions to include JI’s teaching on smoothing the solutions with the motivation to make the subsequent processing, i.e., resistivity variation detection, more robust (JI [0006]:” The smoothing can prevent the picking algorithm from selecting rapid velocity jitters so that the picked velocity follows the trend of the stacking velocity variation in space ”) (see MPEP 2143 G).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
WANG (US20230375739A1) teaches a method for estimating resistivity and dielectric constant values of a subterranean formation with inversion.
PAN (US20220127950A1) teaches a deep learning based approach for enhancing a formation property image in order to improve the accuracy and reliability of formation property images formed from formation property measurements taken by a borehole imaging device.
SONG (US20190078435) teaches smoothing the derivative of the inversion solution (horizontal resistivity) for enhanced determination of formation boundary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUA MEI H CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0493. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby Turner can be reached at 5712726334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUA MEI HARRY CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights